I know it's a totally unoriginal /101/, and that Republicanism isn't the least bit in vogue right now, but I can't stand the Monarchy. I'm generally a laid back person, overly so, honestly, but all this "fairy tale" talk drives me batty like nothing else can. I don't even like moaning about the Monarchy IRL because of what a dead end any discussion about it is, which is why I'm having to do it here. And I fail to see what's so "quintessentially British" about a fucking reptile and a Seppo getting married. How about a couple who have to commute two hours each way because the homes closer to their work were too expensive and too small to start a family? Or the newly weds who have to claim benefits just to make ends meet dispite them both being in full time work? You twee shits.
We've had a monarch ever since even the earliest notions of what at one point might become Britain. We had a revolution once, because it was the done thing at the time, but we realized it was even worse and reinstated the royal line.
Until we actually have a revolution, develop a proper republican constitution and kick the Windsor von Batternburgs out on their clarty arses and back to Greece where they belong, we have no choice but to finance them via the royal list - financed and paid for by use of what are rightfully their lands on a sort of general lease to the government.
If you're talking about kicking off a full scale revolution, confiscating the royal lands, setting up a republic, re-conquering the paddies and using them as replacement slave labour for all the Poles and Bulgarians we'll be kicking out next year then sure, put my name down. Otherwise your argument is just the tiresome wank of someone who knows nothing of British constitutional history (such as it is). I'm only even replying because I just got home and kettle hasn't boiled yet.
>>26797 I don't mind the monarchy and appreciate a good event, but BBC News issued a Breaking News alert last night for "Meghan's dad might not be going". I mean, really? Was that really important enough to interrupt my Netflix binge? I don't fucking think so somehow.
>>26797 Eloquently expressed, I can't stand them either and am mystified by their continued existence never mind huge popularity. Sage because nothing else to say. I expect ex-forces lad who would die for his dear old Queen will put his oar in.
>>26798 There is absolutely no way 'the paddies' will ever let that happen, but I quite like the sound of the rest of your revolution.
The hardest thing I've had to do today is pick an appropriate image for this reply from the reams the group chat send back and forth every day. It was this or the Blair one.
It doesn’t follow in the slightest that a grand knowledge of the constitutional history of the UK makes the fawning, repetitive and blanketed coverage of the upcoming wedding of people entirely inconsequential to the main function of the Monarchy any less shite, you pretentious twat.
I'm sorry but I don't watch TV or indulge in proletariat news sources, I just sit in my ivory shed wanking and wondering how the fuck it's almost June and I've done nothing with my life this year, so to be honest I haven't heard anything about it.
I suggest you turn off your television, close the Daily Mail website and put down your copy of the Metro and maybe have a wank in a shed.
>tiresome wank of someone who knows nothing of British constitutional history
Just because we've had monarchy for a very long time, that doesn't mean it's any use to us now.
The bubonic plague was an inextricable part of our country's history, but I reckon we're probably better off without it.
Anyway the only thing I have to say is that the only real argument I see from plebs on facebook about why the Royals should exist is because 'its gud 4 tourism" right, because no cunt would want to see Buckingham Palace anymore if it wasn't full of germans. Make it a national trust site and let the cunts wander round for forty quid a go, we'd make so much more than however much them standing outside the fence laughing at the guards brings in.
> Just because we've had monarchy for a very long time, that doesn't mean it's any use to us now.
Just type "Oliver Cromwell" into google and start reading lad, then we can discuss this properly.
> Anyway the only thing I have to say is that the only real argument I see from plebs on facebook about why the Royals should exist is because 'its gud 4 tourism" right,
No, it's because without an actual legitimate revolution and installation of a constitutional republic most of the land in the UK still belongs to the crown. George III essentially leased it to Parliament in return for his living costs and the arrangement has continued to this day, but that doesn't make the land any less theirs.
I'm honestly surprised this kind of thing isn't taught in school, no wonder every dolescum cunt from Paisley to Penzance thinks the royal family should just be shoed off somewhere like an Alzheimer-ridden nan who keeps dribbling tea down her front while they're trying to watch Jeremy Kyle of an afternoon - they've never been taught that a monarchy, until disposed, basically owns the entire country. That's what being a King (or Queen) has always been all about.
Now I'm no royalist and I'd much rather a proper constitutional republic with guaranteed rights and freedoms than the current "constitutional monarchy" clusterfuck of "whatever the current government wants to take from us they do" we have now - but saying things like "I think we should get rid of the monarchy" without stopping to consider what that actually means - things like how the crown lands and the crown estate would be divided up, who would write a constitution and how, what form of government we would end up with, whether we would end up with Richard Dawkins or Dappy on the £5 note etc just marks you out as either a loud mouthed teenlad or an uneducated bore. Or both.
>>26812 > how simple a modern revolution would be.
That's because most "modern" revolutions simply turn the "ruling class" out on their arses and direct the country either towards anarchy or into a failed socialist republic. There hasn't been a decent "successful" revolution (that I can think of right this minute) since we lost the empire.
There have been plenty that have ended up with tyrants, dictators, whackjob communist/socialist regimes and straight up prolonged civil war, though.
Please enlighten me on how simple it'd be to rewrite a thousand years of common and case law, develop a modern constitution and rework our parliamentary system into one that that involves some form of head of state as opposed to simply "the leader of the party with the most seats" (which is a ridiculous way of doing things anyway), because I'm dieing to know.
People always talk about the tourism but never mention the immense diplomatic bonus our royal family provides.
Of course your average Joe doesn't understand a fraction of the incredible work our diplomats are doing on a constant basis but the soft power they bring is unreal.
Look alone at Wills and Kate and the crowds that gathered in Canada for them to trundle along. I don't think the same turnout would be apparent for President Blair or President Cameron.
Reminds me of every "no that wasn't Real Communism" argument I see talked about online.
> Czechoslovakia
Was the result of post WWI shake up, less a revolution and more one of the results of the dissolution of an empire.
As noted in >>26816 I was looking for successful examples of "modern" revolutions.
>>26821 > The Velvet revolution, Estonia, Bulgaria, Romania etc
Ex soviet states don't really count because they had their own previous traditions to fall back to. The UK really hasn't had any other tradition but a Monarchy, be a totalitarian or a parliamentary one, since not long after the Romans fucked off.
We'd basically be fucking the entire thousand years of ancestral history, constitution, and law into a skip and starting again afresh. I'm not saying it can't be done but when it has been done, and done successfully, it's usually taken an outside force acting upon the country in question in order to succeed (viz: post war Germany and Japan).
>>26822 >Reminds me of every "no that wasn't Real Communism" argument I see talked about online.
Do go on. I'd love to hear what your alleged "thinking" was here.
>Was the result of post WWI shake up
Could you explain this one a bit? I mean, I'm a little confused as to how events 70 years prior are somehow the cause of the peaceful transition and division.
Meghan's dad is definitely not attending. I know this because the BBC deemed it worthy of yet another BREAKING NEWS alert. Nothing on the closures and job losses at Mothercare or the Grenfell review or the Ebola outbreak.
>>26837 It was build up by certain people as a watershed moment that would define our era. These people generally exploited the situation for political capital, but the turning of the tide they were pinning their hopes on and trying to force happen never materialised.
The reality is that most people viewed it as a tragic event and then moved on with their lives.
> I'm a little confused as to how events 70 years prior are somehow the cause of the peaceful transition and division.
That's because you're confusing the formation of Czechoslovakia from the Austro-Hungarian empire after WWI with the peaceful dissolution of Czechoslovakia into The Czech Republic and Slovenia towards the end of the USSR.
It may behoove you even further to note that you yourself used the words "Peaceful transition and division" and not "revolution".
Yet further enlightenment may befall you if you realise that these countries/territories/peoples had traditions and ways of life before being subsumed into the Austro-Hungarian empire, where as the UK has had no traditions or way of life other than Monarchism since, essentially, the local development of agriculture.
Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and England all becoming separate self-governing nations while regarding the queen as head of state and adhering to essentially the same case and common law as we've been doing for the last thousand years or so would be a lot less work than simply "kicking out the royals" and trying to cobble together an overnight republic.
The bottom line is that the royals are probably worth more than what is spent on them, and everything that is spent on them is more than compensated for by the parliamentary use of the crown estate, and the only real arguments for getting rid of them are teenlad level ignorance or the beguiling idea of seeing who would be the better president - Donald or Boris.
>>26840 >That's because you're confusing the formation of Czechoslovakia from the Austro-Hungarian empire after WWI with the peaceful dissolution of Czechoslovakia into The Czech Republic and Slovenia towards the end of the USSR.
No, it's because you're confusing them, daftlad.
>It may behoove you even further to note that you yourself used the words "Peaceful transition and division" and not "revolution".
Because those things are totally mutually exclusive and bloodless revolutions aren't really a thing, right?
>>26841 > No, it's because you're confusing them, daftlad.
>>26820 Mentioned "Czechoslovakia?" which any sane person would assume, given the context of the discussion, to mean "a revolution that resulted in the country of Czechoslovakia being formed.
>>26821 Mentioned "Czech Republic", which any sane person would assume, given the context of the discussion, to mean "a revolution that resulted in the country of the Czech Republic being formed.
As these are both entirely separate subjects I addressed them separately and as you appear to have the reading and comprehension skills of a drunken Alsatian after a head swap operation failed to notice that (or simply never realized that they were two separate events in history).
Anyway this discussion is starting to remind me one of those comedy sketches that doesn't really have a punchline, just the comedian staring down the camera at you like you're a dog that's just been shown a card trick.
>>26843 >Mentioned "Czechoslovakia?" which any sane person would assume, given the context of the discussion, to mean "a revolution that resulted in the country of Czechoslovakia being formed.
If you say so, daftlad.
Just because you use long words and act like a pretentious dickhead, whilst belittling the arguments contrary to your own by over simplifying it to "kicking out the royals", it doesn't make your argument any more persuasive. It just makes you look like a pretentious dickhead.
Only to thick cunts like >>26851 who not only have the vocabularies of six year olds, but also manage to confuse "long words" with "words I don't know".
If he had to read a Will Self novel he'd probably beat himself to death with a dictionary before he got past the first page. Barely contained snorting at my own razor wit.
>>26809 I feel we could justify just as much tourism, daresay more, if we chose Buckingham Palace as the sites of the public executions. The Americans already go mad for those fucking Jack the Ripper tours, can you imagine how much they'd fork out to go tramping their sweaty obese bodies over a freshly blood-soaked gibbet.
And people say anarchists have no business acumen.
If we had any sense, we'd turn the country into Ye Olde Englande Theme Parke. The emerging Chinese middle class are eager to spunk all their hard-earned renminbi on Burberry coats and Twinings tea and they outnumber us ten to one. Norfolk can be the gift shop until it's consumed by rising sea levels. The East Coast Mainline is obviously beyond repair, so let's just rip it up and turn it into a sightseeing monorail.
We could really do with a spare Prince Philip - the Chinese love a bit of casual racism. Maybe Wills can have a go?
Could the whole breaking news shite about walking her down the aisle just an elaborately staged PR game?
It conveniently adds a bit of tragedy and sympathy to the woman and may help to propel her to the rank of 'The People's Princess' in the eyes of Daz and Janine Regular.